I don't think this has to do with gun control; it has got to do with political stuff about what can happen with US lent weapons. I don't think even gun control people are worried about dinged up old Garands.

"The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands."

I hate it when politicians make decisions on "what if" senarios which are either extremely unlikely to happen or if they do will have minimal effect on society. Its not as if there is a problem of roving bands of motocycle gangs with Garands welded onto their handle bars. The state department is making a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. They might as well curtail outdoor activities in case the sun supernovas and incinerates our planet.

I mean...if anything I felt was controversial---and it was reported by CNN, BBC, NPR, MSNBC, or the Big3 in state controlled media---I would immediately discount it as propaganda or an outright lie...well, because that's been their history for the past 30 years or so. It's never in any news agency's best interest to report "just the facts"---because human beings own these news outlets. These human beings have points of view.
These human beings also control who they hire to spin or deliver the news in such a manner that it dovetails into their own beliefs. The modern news media (see above) unarguably has been slanted to the left for decades. Decades. That's nearly every major newspaper and every major news outlet.

Several years back...Fox News hit the news scene. News--which is slightly slanted to the politically right. I say slightly...because it's very slightly pushed that way. You don't see the degree of leftism which is present on Fox, duplicated on other news networks in such a token sense; they don't even bother. So...on cue, the political left began foaming at the mouth...going apeshit, because this one news outlet (versus their 50 or so), was slanted to the right. Of course, being a breath of fresh air---it now firmly is the most popular and most-watched news channel there is. If it was such garbage, why would people in droves continue to watch it?

A veritable monopoly isn't good enough for the left...they want it all. Television, print and radio. Because they understand that if you control the news media, you can control how public opinion is formed, and that my friend...is how peoples' minds can be manipulated. Think for yourself, my man....I hope to hell that you aren't voting for Harry Reid this November.

I mean...if anything I felt was controversial---and it was reported by CNN, BBC, NPR, MSNBC, or the Big3 in state controlled media---I would immediately discount it as propaganda or an outright lie...well, because that's been their history for the past 30 years or so. It's never in any news agency's best interest to report "just the facts"---because human beings own these news outlets. These human beings have points of view.
These human beings also control who they hire to spin or deliver the news in such a manner that it dovetails into their own beliefs. The modern news media (see above) unarguably has been slanted to the left for decades. Decades. That's nearly every major newspaper and every major news outlet.

Several years back...Fox News hit the news scene. News--which is slightly slanted to the politically right. I say slightly...because it's very slightly pushed that way. You don't see the degree of leftism which is present on Fox, duplicated on other news networks in such a token sense; they don't even bother. So...on cue, the political left began foaming at the mouth...going apeshit, because this one news outlet (versus their 50 or so), was slanted to the right. Of course, being a breath of fresh air---it now firmly is the most popular and most-watched news channel there is. If it was such garbage, why would people in droves continue to watch it?

A veritable monopoly isn't good enough for the left...they want it all. Television, print and radio. Because they understand that if you control the news media, you can control how public opinion is formed, and that my friend...is how peoples' minds can be manipulated. Think for yourself, my man....I hope to hell that you aren't voting for Harry Reid this November.

So if Fox attributes this Garand import ban to gun control, I think, "Well sure, they probably would tend to portray it that way."

Likewise if MSNBC or someone similar ran a story about how the Garands would, I dunno, lead to terrorism or whatever I'd say the same thing.

Actually, I don't watch the news, because I feel it is all propaganda. My only news source is The Economist because being British I hope it is less likely to be US-specific political propaganda. That being said I see it as being a little leftist.

Bottom line is that I hope you don't see me as being a news puppet of some kind because I don't watch it. Actually as an NRA member you could even argue that First Freedom could be construed as a news source for me.

I'm typing this on a mobile so I'll keep this real brief and just say that these Garands would be an odd target for the gun control lobby and not one they would be able to use to garner popular or donor support in either the short or long run.

I usually avoid replying to posts like this because it is, and therefore my reply is also, clearly the kind of thing Sociocide was created to house. Then again, the gun control aspect of the Armory often leads to this very dilemma...and besides, I opened this can of worms in the first place. Having said that, I'll do my usual and address each point in turn.

Because Fox News was specifically created to provide a right wing slant on the news. Whether left wing bias exists in other channels or not, political bias has no place in journalism. Slanting the other way doesn't make them any less wrong.

Originally Posted by Lord Skeletor

I mean...if anything I felt was controversial---and it was reported by CNN, BBC, NPR, MSNBC, or the Big3 in state controlled media---I would immediately discount it as propaganda or an outright lie...well, because that's been their history for the past 30 years or so. It's never in any news agency's best interest to report "just the facts"---because human beings own these news outlets. These human beings have points of view.

I always want to see the source material for anything they report that appears to play into the right wing playbook (e.g. Gun Control, "The War on Christmas," abortion rights, homosexual rights, "Reverse Discrimination" [itself a moronic phrase, since it implies that discrimination has predetermined directionality], and arguments against the Separation of Church and State) because influencing public opinion on such topics is their stated purpose. I also prefer to see the source material for news from other sources, but—whereas MSNBC, CNN, and much of the BBC World Service are merely incompetent—only Fox News was founded with the intention of inserting political talking points into the news.

Originally Posted by Lord Skeletor

These human beings also control who they hire to spin or deliver the news in such a manner that it dovetails into their own beliefs.

By the way, Glenn Beck worked for CNN's Headline News before he worked for Fox News. Yes, it was part of AOL Time Warner's attempt to compete with Fox News at their own game, but it was also proof that AOL Time Warner didn't have a clue what was wrong with their network. Hell, the current state of Headline News proves they still aren't as sentient as an ant in a bong.

Originally Posted by Lord Skeletor

Several years back...Fox News hit the news scene. News--which is slightly slanted to the politically right. I say slightly...because it's very slightly pushed that way. You don't see the degree of leftism which is present on Fox, duplicated on other news networks in such a token sense; they don't even bother.

What I see is a coordinated effort to push certain stories, and a certain angle on a story, throughout the day: first Fox and Friends fires the salvo of talking points, mostly in the form of what they choose to discuss, then the various shows that constitute the news portion of the day claim that "people are talking about" at least one story that was mentioned earlier in the day—giving a sense of importance to the story—and get a guest to reiterate the right wing slant on that story (people like "Fox News Contributor" Michelle Malkin who, as far as I know, had only ever been a blogger before she was promoted up the ranks of the right wing media), with the last step being the "story of the day" (quoting the phrase used in the Directives Roger Ailes used to hand out at the beginning of the day) showing up during the editorial portion of the programming schedule (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc.). They have used this strategy for years, and its primary purpose is to establish a sense of a story being big, important news. The result of this strategy is that many American right wingers can be made to foam at the mouth about a story which isn't important, such as the "birther" movement. The only thing that's important about the "birther" movement is the sociological implications of that many people falling in line to angrily support bullshit.

Originally Posted by Lord Skeletor

So...on cue, the political left began foaming at the mouth...going apeshit, because this one news outlet (versus their 50 or so), was slanted to the right. Of course, being a breath of fresh air---it now firmly is the most popular and most-watched news channel there is. If it was such garbage, why would people in droves continue to watch it?

All the complaints I made, or heard made, about Fox News from about 1999 to 2003 had to do with their lack of journalistic integrity. From the directives issued by Roger Ailes, to the extremely suspicious way in which they came to call the 2000 Presidential Election for Bush, to the way they parroted neo-conservative talking points about war with Iraq (remember when The Project for a New American Century was featured as a Good Thing, complete with...I think it was Paul Wolfowitz...as the praised guest? I wish I had that on tape).

Fox News, to anthropomorphize an organization, is a whore. My initial problem wasn't their right wing slant; I was angry because I was being told to support a whore who was pretending to be a journalist (and that was before Jeff Gannon). My list of complaints has expanded to include the amount of bullshit they insert into political debate and their utter lack of respect. It is one thing to chastise the Daily Show for not showing respect, but it's quite another for a news organization to act like a bunch of frat boys telling inside jokes (for instance, their approval of the "purple heart band-aid" stunt during the 2004 Presidential Election. What happened to the troops being our sacrosanct heroes?).

Originally Posted by Lord Skeletor

A veritable monopoly isn't good enough for the left...they want it all. Television, print and radio. Because they understand that if you control the news media, you can control how public opinion is formed, and that my friend...is how peoples' minds can be manipulated.

The reason you give for the left's supposed desire to control all media is exactly why Fox News was created. How many thousands of people cite Glenn Beck for the reason they're so fearful and angry about the Obama Administration, meanwhile they were never upset about the FBI kidnapping an American citizen—without due process of law—and locking him up in Guantanamo Bay? Every one of the news outlets which were mainstream in the 1990s has become garbage over the course of the last 15 years, but Fox News stands alone in that it was never meant to achieve the old standard of journalistic integrity.

I am very much a leftist in general, but that doesn't mean that I don't have good reasons for distrusting Fox News.

Originally Posted by Snake Plissken

cuz FastPass on Indiana Jones was like being a ghetto rock star.

Originally Posted by Kiko

But graffiti isn't a bowl of fruit...

Originally Posted by Robstafarian

Merely insulting you is not an ad hominem fallacy: them calling you an idiot would be ad hominem if they said "You are an idiot, therefore your argument is invalid."

Anyone? I would like to see their reasoning, if they have any. I smell Iran and North Korea being involved in all this, somehow.

And Skeletor, you are Mark Trippin' a little bit there buddy.

Minor Rant:

I'm in the military. I leave the wire. I am more than happy to send terrorists to their deity of choice. I own a couple guns and hate the fact that I am inhibited by the state from protecting my loved ones. I don't like being a part of a nanny state. I love the constitution, and am not really a big fan of what the US has become. We are a nation of children that lack personal responsibility. That said, I still don't like watching Fox News.

Why? Because of the heavyhanded religious overtones. I am a fiscally conservative atheist that does not approve of a fucking news channel discussing the lack of Jesus in America today as if it is a news event on par with 9/11.

Also, this isn't aimed at anyone in this thread, but more at people in the armed forces: I realize you are all conservatives. If you don't approve of Obama, please at least read a fucking newspaper every now and then and create a policy-based explanation of why not. Also, keep in mind that he is your fucking commander in chief, whether you like it or not. Meaning he is your boss. Maybe that doesn't mean the same thing to others as it does to me.

"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

Are you sure there are nefarious reasons for this beyond "fucking bureaucracy"?

Because frankly, that's all it looks like from the outside, just a bunch of jobsworths obeying the letter of the law.

I would suspect this is the case. If I were a bureaucrat, I would automatically get worried if someone wanted to dump a **** ton of weapons on the market. That's why I'm wondering if someone isn't holding up the sale until THEY CAN BE ABSOLUTELY SURE that hundreds of thousands of antique weapons won't succumb to the AXIS OF EVIL and be used to fund state sponsored terrorism.

"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal